Talk:Ebla

Template:Oldpeerreview Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|Ebla]] Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Dyktalk

Untitled

Now almost every noun is linked. Why create a link to a name that has no other existence besides its appearance in an inscription at Ebla? Links are meant to be followed for more detailed information. They have no other purpose.Wetman 01:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else is known except the name, ãgreed -- the link is indeed superfluous. But if something else is known, it is not unlikely that someone will write an article about the guy (Think of all those obscure Tolkien characters...), in which case the link will be useful. I suppose that a really good wikipedia should eventually have an article

"Rabbit-Tim was a king of Ebla in the 3rd millenium BC. Its name is known from only one inscription found in that city's site.
This article is a stub...

In any case the link does not seem to cost much.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 22:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

As a general rule, not just here, if the entry is littered with dead end "links" and every date is linked, etc then meaningful links, like Sargon of Akkad in this entry, become invisible.Wetman 23:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, myself I would never have thought of making dates into links; but that is the custom, and I cannot think of a good criterion for linking some dates while leaving others unlinked. So...

As for person names, I thought of two other excuses for creating such "dead" links:

• To signal to other wikipedians "here is an article that ought to be written".
• To provide a surrogate of a subject index, through the "what links here" button.

Please note that Google searching is not a good substitute for subject index, because it often provides too many irrelevant hits, and will miss pages that refer to the concept by an abbreviated or non-standard name. E.g. searching for "John Smith" will not find "two Smiths, Joe and Jack"; but reverse-linking will, if they are linked "two [[Smith family|Smith]]s, [[Joseph Smith|Joe]] and [[John Smith|Jack]]".

Anyway, I agree that moderation, here as everywhere, is a good idea. All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 05:48, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

A "rumor" moved here

"It is rumored that Giovanni Petinato, an epigrapher studying the texts, reported that the names of five famous Biblical cities near the Dead Sea (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela/Zoar) were mentioned in the Ebla archives (tablet 1860) in the same order as in Genesis 14." It isn't reassuring to see Giovanni Pettinato's name misspelled, but the publication of such "information" must be more encyclopedic than a "rumor." Can anyone confirm this? Is it meaningful? --Wetman 14:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to write an article on the Ebla Tablets.

I'm not sure there is anything conclusive about mention of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here's a quote from a website (itself quoting Biblical Archaeology Review):

When the archives at ancient Ebla (in present day northern Syria) were first discovered in 1975, the translator, Giovanni Pettinato, reported he had found the names of the 5 cities of the plain were not only listed, but in the same order as in Genesis. However, the Syrian government was "angered at the emphasis placed in the West on the tablets' alleged Biblical significance". (BAR, May/June 1980, p. 48) A rather large controversy then began over these tablets, which the Syrians felt were being used to link the Biblical Patriarchs with Syrian history, something they would not stand for. This finally resulted in Pettinato's resignation and letter of recantation as to many of the translations. The later appointed director of the Italian mission excavating at Ebla issued a statement which shows why Pettinato was forced to recant: "These allegations [linking the Ebla tablets with the Bible] were propagated by Zionist-American centres to be exploited for atrocious purposes aimed at proving the expansionist and colonialistic views of the Zionist leaders." (Ibid., p. 49). When Pattinato, the original translator of the texts, made his recantation, he still insisted that the 2 cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were correct.

- If the original translator of the texts, obviously a man who was considered highly qualified to lead the project until he fell afoul Syrian Judeophobia, says that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were mentioned in the texts, and were listed in the same way that the Scriptural text lists them, then this is not a "rumor" but as authoritative as one can ask for. Treating it as a mere "rumor" because it is displeasing to rabid anti-Zionists (or worse, antisemites), and removing any reference to this highly relevant matter from the article itself, is not academically acceptable. There is a further point to be made, showing to what a degree this Wikipedia article has capitulated to Syrian "anti-Zionism." The Syrian view is that the language of the Ebla archival materials is "Eblaite." This is to avoid admitting that it is in fact a very early form of Hebrew. This can be verified objectively, and is not really a matter of political ideology and should not be distorted by ideology, it is a purely philological matter. If one simply cannot bring oneself to say "Hebrew," for fear of suggesting that Israel and Jews really do have authentic deep historical roots in the region and the Biblical account is substantially correct about Abraham, etc., then at the least one must admit that the language spoken and written in the Ebla empire was "Proto-Canaanitic." But "Eblaite"? Come on. -

-I don't know whether Eblaite is an early form of Hebrew, but you can just forget the Abraham bit, unless you have some tangible contemporary evidence in hand. You can also forget about Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Samson and many others. Maybe, just maybe, starting with David, you are dealing with real people. Thomas Keyes

--Thomas Keyes - Fortunately, the archaeological and historical evidence is against you. DRJ 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the subject at hand, the Ebla debate ocasioned by Pettinati's unprofessional character assassination of Alfonso Archi in the journal Pettinati edits, Oriens Antiquus 19 (1980:49-72) and published in an English translation in The Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980) pp 203-16, was crisply and unconditionally responded to in a joint letter supportive of Archi, dated 30 May 1980, signed by eight members of the International Committee for the Study of Ebla Texts and published in The Biblical Archaologist Summer 1981, p 137. The consensus has been summed up succinctly in a published letter of Prof. A.F. Rainey, Tel Aviv University "The Ebla tablets will shed much light on the history of Syria and the Near East in general. Why prostitute them for false biblical 'parallels'?" (in B.A.R. VI 5 (1980)p. 13. Anyone with JSTOR access can confirm my facts. --Wetman 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And what facts are those, Wetman? The fact that Pettinato was the one who deciphered the Eblaite language in the first place, and was the pioneer in interpreting the Eblaite cuneiform tablets, only the "Biblical interpretations" of which have ever been "rejected"? The fact that Pettinato was expelled from the team, due to an acrimonious personal dispute in no small measure provoked by the Syrian government's interference, after which the director of team Paolo Matthiae made statements to the Syrian media officially denouncing alleged Biblical parallels to Eblaite tablets as a Zionist-American conspiracy? The fact that Pettinato's replacement Archi was not a specialist in the field? The fact that further examinations of the cuneiform tablets have been effectively discontinued?

To be sure, some of Pettinato's claims were somewhat daring, but he never stated that any of the names he encountered at Ebla should be positively identified with the name of a specific Biblical character. Also, none of his readings which might be construed as having a Biblical parallel have been conclusively refuted.

This Wikipedia article seem to have surpassed even the Syrian government's efforts in diverting attention from scholarly research that seems to be causing discomfort in certain circles.

20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The claims about what Pettinato did or did not say about Sodom and Gomorrah suffer from not reading Freedman, David Noel, “The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets: Ebla and the Cities of the Plain.” Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 143-164, December 1978 which makes clear that corrections have been made to the original claims.

108.45.122.74 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ebla tablets

An articleEbla tablets was begun in March 2010.--Wetman (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting

hey, this is one of the most important article for the history of Syria, and in its old form was filled with mistakes, it took me a week but i finally wrote the article as it should be, i thank every one of the former editor, their work helped me where to look, im giving you a summary of the edits i made to each section , i counted on the newest works by different professors, i neglected old sources that contradict newer findings, please read my work, fix the grammar , and tell me if you have any notes, and please dont delete anything without adding a reliable source and have a discussion since every single sentence i wrote is backed by a reference :

Ebla in the third millennium BC + Ebla in the second millennium BC

i butchered those sections, the first 7 lines of Ebla in the third millennium BC were good and i kept them and added more citations, while Ebla ::in the second millennium BC has been rewritten completely,,, as you can see i greatly expanded the newly created History section

Government

this section was completely rewritten

People, Language and Culture

i created this section and moved information's about the language of ebla from the discovery section to this section

Economy

i thank the editor of this section, he made my work much easier

Discovery and excavation

i didnt delete nor did anything except for moving some info to the language section

Religion

this section was disturbing, i thank the editor who countered all those claims, i dont understand why the discussion about old biblical theories that died is given more space than the actual :religion and history of ebla,, any way i dont have the will nor the time to fight angry Zionists so i didn't delete anything, i just expanded the :informations about ebla and reorganized the argument about the bible so its easier to read without deleting any thing except for the name :Jerusalem, the reason is found in a comment written by the editor who tagged the word with (unreliable source) : The author is described by :Creation wiki as a "Young Earth creationist" - hardly a neutral source — and the title is likewise sensationalistic. The first occurrence of :Jerusalem seems to be commonly dated to the Mitanni letter, five centuries later — see the Jerusalem article. The mention of Jerusalem is :explicitly denied in Ur and Jerusalem Not Mentioned in Ebla Tablets, Say Ebla Expedition Scholars, by James D. Muhly, Biblical Archeological :Review 9:06, Nov/Dec 1983

if any one want to put it back, he will need to provide newer more reliable sources --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Map must be corrected or removed

The map of "the first Ebla kingdom" is an original research. There is no evidence that Damascus existed in the 3rd millennium BC, and there is no evidence that Ebla's dominion reached that far to the south. The word "Halab" is not attested before the Yamhad era. The map must be corrected or removed, because these are grave mistakes.--HD86 (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

actually it is not original research an it is fully sourced . Just read the description in the summary section where all the sources exist. As for halab, it was "halam" back then, so there are no "grave" mistakes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This book [1] is not about Ebla but about Canaan. The author does not discuss the issue. He just throws a casual remark about Ebla's political control without pointing out any evidence. This is not a sufficient citation. The truth is that Damascus is not mentioned in the Ebla archive, nor in any other writings from the 3rd millennium BC. The earliest reference to Damascus was made in Egyptian writings from the reign of Tuthmosis III in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. It was not an important town at that time. There is no justification for putting Damascus on the Ebla map. The southern border must be drawn up towards Qatna (even the inclusion of Qatna is uncertain, so I suggest making the southern border dashed). The word Halab must be corrected to Halam (I think there is one author who read this word "Halab," but this reading is unproven).--HD86 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This book Eblaitica is about Ebla not Akkad and its stating that the northern regions of Ebla in the Amanus were not attached to Akkad. Should we delete this information because the book is not about Akkad ?

Another example would be Odaenathus. There is absolutely no source solely about him, its usually in books about the Roman empire. Should we delete the article of Odaenathus.?

Its not a criteria for a reliable source for it to be about the subject in its entirety. The criteria is the Author and the publisher. The author is Jonathan Tubb; renowned archaeologist with work centered in Syria and the Levant. The publisher is University of Oklahoma Press. The source is reliable and Im sure that an archaeologist in the british museum knows whats he is talking about. If you doubt the reliability or suitability of the source then you can take it to the reliable source portal.

As for Halam : No body knows what that is ! Im sure that Tell Munbateh didnt have that name in 2500 BC but that doesnt mean not to mention it. I can edit the map and put Halam under Halab like this (Halam) but Damascus is just an indication to the region not the city itself.

But regardless, Damascus being under the rule of Ebla can not be ruled out; John C. H. Laughlin refused that Damascus was mentioned in the tablets of Ebla because the report was not confirmed by further studies. But Jack Finegan in his book consider the report valid. So obviously you cant say with trust that Damascus didnt exist with that name (keep in mind the the name is older than the Semitic languages themselves !).

Tubb is obviously using the report of Damascus in Ebla's tablets to claim that Ebla controlled this region. This report is refused by some scholars and accepted by some. So who gets to decide ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another image issue, I noticed a licence problem with this[2] image and have nominated it for deletion. Perhaps something like this[3] can be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I will replace the nominated image then.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

HD86 is wrong about the source, but the point that Ebla probably didn't control Damascus is valid. Tubb's assertion was made in the 90's and a lot of older claims about Ebla's size starting are misrepresenting its extent. Reconstructing the geography and placing toponyms is a very challenging, long process and it's often not entirely clear where everything is (look at Dugurasu and Armi which have both only been convincingly located in the past decade).

I think it makes a lot of sense to try to update the map to align with what we know now about the surroundings of Ebla. In Bonechi 2016 there's a map from Archi 2011 and Bonechi's comments about interpreteing Ebla's borders. Both of these scholars have published a lot on Ebla and are probably more familiar with the sources than the authors currently used as a reference for the map. I think using either one of those as a basis for a map of Ebla would help bring the map a little more up-to-date with current knowledge. - Gulkishar (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right Gulkishar.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgot about this for a while, but I quickly drew up this for an updated map. Hopefully it's a little more historically accurate, but let me know if I missed anything important. If it looks alright I might put it in, just wanted to see what you thought before replacing your map. Gulkishar (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ebla=Yamshad, Eblaitic = Amorite Language = Mitanni (Biainili) = Nairi (Biainili)

Eblaitic language is Amorite Language

Kingdom of Armi 2290 BC in Halab (Aleppo) under name Yamshad (loanword from Yamhadite dynasty)

1810 BC under Mari-Dynasty annexed by Babylonia 1761 BC, to ~ 1650 BC Vasall by Mari (Amoriter)

Land of Apiru (egypt viewpoint, Thutmoses III) and

Land of Mukish under Mitanni viewpoint (from Urkish=Urshu/Warsuwa=Waššukanni)

Than Ebla/Alalakh/Yamshad to 1517 BC, Begin of Mitanni-Time (Hani-Rabbat, Bit Balikh) to Šattiwazza, King of Mitanni

annexed by Hittite Šuppiluliuma (renamed in Uris=Urkish), here is etablished a Luwian Dynasty. Now came a IE Aspect in her language. Hittite contract between Tudhaliya II with luwian Sunassura II of Kizzuwatna (ŠunaŠŠura)

under Uratru a province Mukish (unsave reading)

Arame (correct Arme - a loanname from Eblaitic King Armi for legitimation) Arame 858 BC–844 BC to 810 BC under Menua, Son of Išpuini (biblic Minni)

Arme (hurritic i to e is move from hittitic to uratean language) is a mythical ancestry of Rusa-Dynasty in Uratru, Uratru is a rest from Mitanni population, and one of 8 Nairi-Countrys in Assyrian viewpoint (after the fall of Hittiti Kingdom 1190 BC) destroyed from Salmanasser III. and Sargon II. (Rusa II.)

God: eblaitic "Hadda" in c. 2500 BCE, then Adad = under semitic influence Hadad and under Uratru Ḫaldi/chaldi and Teššup or Teshub. Mythical Epos: Kingdom of Heaven, tells from Anu, alalu (Alalakh) and others and Epos "Song of Release". This is the mythical base for Nairi in Uratru (assyrian loanname from Urkish) and Mannai by Martianus (greek name for Mitanni)

It is the same region and same peoples with 2 Languages, Eblaitic (called Amoriter) in West and Hurritic in East)

Template:Infobox former country

Kings of Yamhad

Dates are estimated and given by the Middle chronology.Template:Sfn

King	Reigned	Title	Relation to Previous King
Sumu-Epuh	c. 1810 BC – c. 1780 BC	King
Yarim-Lim I	c. 1780 BC – c. 1764 BC	Great King	Son.Template:Sfn
Hammurabi I	c. 1764 BC – c. 1750 BC	Great King	Son.Template:Sfn
Abba-El I	c. 1750 BC – c. 1720 BC	Great King	Son.Template:Sfn
Yarim-Lim II	c. 1720 BC – c. 1700 BC	Great King	Son.Template:Sfn
Niqmi-Epuh	c. 1700 BC – c. 1675 BC	Great King	Son.Template:Sfn
Irkabtum	c. 1675 BC – Mid-17th century BC	Great King	Son.Template:Sfn
Hammurabi II	Mid-17th century BC	Great King	Possible brother.Template:Sfn
Yarim-Lim III	Mid-17th century BC – c. 1625 BC	Great King	Brother of Irkabtum.Template:Sfn
Hammurabi III	c. 1625 BC – c. 1600 BC	King	Son.Template:Sfn
Sarra-El	Early 16th century BC	King	Possible son of Yarim-Lim III.Template:Sfn
Abba-El II	Mid-16th century BC	King	Son.Template:Sfn
Ilim-Ilimma I	c. 1524 – c. 1517 BC	King	Possible son.Template:Sfn

Map

The third para under Archive period mentions several places: Hazuwan, Burman, Emar, Halabitu and Salbatu. The location of Hazuwan is not known; Burman and Emar are on the map; but Halabitu and Salbatu aren't. It would be helpful if they were, if only so that the reader doesn't have to go to the link to each to find the locations. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ebla - enhanced map
  Ebla - enhanced map

Timeline

The given history spans more than four millennia (3500 BC to 700 AD). Would a visual timeline help? I've compiled one for your comments.

• Graphical display of Ebla's fluctuating fortunes
  Graphical display of Ebla's fluctuating fortunes

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This looks great. Where do you suggest to add it?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe after the first paragraph under History, and before First kingdom? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)